362 U.S.

327
80 S.Ct. 737
4 L.Ed.2d 766

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES of America.
No. 98.
Argued March 23, 1960.
Decided April 4, 1960.

Mr. Elmer B. Collins, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Mr. John G. Laughlin, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Appellant, along with other railroads, has for years engaged in the 'roller
lumber traffic' by performing intentionally delayed service in the transportation
of lumber from the West Coast to market. Six roads so engaged have filed
tariffs covering such services at the same rate as their fast freight, and the
Interstate Commerce Commission now has such tariffs under investigation and
consideration. Appellant, however, has refused to file a tariff covering such
service but continues to handle roller lumber traffic on the same tariff as its fast
freight.

The United States, at the instance of the Interstate Commerce Commission,

sought and obtained a permanent injunction restraining appellant from
performing its roller lumber traffic service until it publishes and files a tariff
covering the same. The District Court found that appellant renders a 14-day
delayed lumber service over a route ordinarily requiring from two to four days.
The delay is accomplished by the holding of cars on sidings at certain points on
its trunk lines awaiting diversion orders to move the shipment forward over the
railroad's regular service. This affords the shipper additional time to find a
market for the lumber while it is in transit. This service, the District Court
found, (173 F.Supp. 401) incurred additional 'operational problems and costs'
for appellant, including switching, siding, storage and 'per diem cost for the use

of foreign cars' not present in its fast freight service and not included in its
published tariff. We agree with the District Court that such delayed service
constitutes the furnishing of additional 'privileges or facilities' under 6(7) of
the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. 6(7), and, therefore, must be
published and filed in its tariff. 49 U.S.C. 6(1), 49 U.S.C.A. 6(1). See
Turner, Dennis & Lowry Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co., 1926, 271
U.S. 259, 262, 46 S.Ct. 530, 531, 70 L.Ed. 934.
3

If and when appellant publishes and files such a tariff, as other roads have
already done, the Commission can then consider the reasonableness and
justness of appellant's service in the light of that rate, giving due regard to any
unjust or unreasonable preferences or advantages that might result to shippers
or other roads should the same not be approved.

Affirmed.